linkedin_logout

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the one crucial fact — that it deletes the stored session credential, i.e. a destructive teardown. It says nothing about idempotency, whether it also invalidates server-side tokens, or what happens if no session exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the destructive action is stated first and nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an extremely simple zero-parameter, no-output tool, one sentence covers the essentials, but with no annotations the description could reasonably have noted that the call is destructive and irreversible. It is adequate rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to describe; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('the stored member session'), which maps unambiguously to a logout operation. However, it does no explicit sibling differentiation — nothing distinguishes it in text from linkedin_login/linkedin_finish_login beyond the obvious name contrast.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the name and description make it obvious this is the teardown counterpart to linkedin_login. There is no statement of when to call it (after finishing work, before switching accounts) or any excluded scenario, and no alternative tool is named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.